0170 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 2 minutes [296 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

it was wholly immaterial as to what his custom previous to that
time had been.

31. Because, during the trial the following colloquy took place
between the solicitor and the witness Schiff:-

Q. Isn't the dressing room back behind these doors?
A. Yes, it is back behind these doors.

Q. That is the fastening of that door, isn't it?
A. Yes.

Q. And isn't the dressing room back there then?
A. That isn't the way it is situated.

Q. It isn't the way it is situated?
A. It is not, no, sir.

Q. Why, Mr. Schiff, if this is the door right here and---
A. Mr. Dorsey I know that factory.

Q. Well, I am trying to get you to tell us if you know it; you
have no objection to telling it, have you?
(Here objection was made by defendant's counsel that Schiff
had shown no objection to answering the questions of the solicitor
and that such questions as the one next above, which indicated
that the witness did object to answering was improper.)

Mr. Dorsey: I have got a right to show that, ruling.

The Court: Go on, now, and put your questions.

Mr. Dorsey: Have you any objections to answering the question,
Mr. Witness?

A. No, sir; I have not.

These comments of the solicitor, reflecting upon the witness
were objected to and the Court-urged to prevent such reflections.

This the Court declined to do and allowed the solicitor to
repeat the insinuation that the witness was objecting to answering
him.

This was prejudicial error. The witness deserved no such in-
sinuations as were made by the solicitor and in the absence of the
requested relief by the Court, the jury was left to believe that
the reflections of the solicitor were just.

This witness was one of the main leading witnesses for the
defendant, and to allow him, movant contends, to be thus
unjustly discredited was harmful to the defendant.